The reason you have standards at all is because you are judging something in distinction of others.
My experiences have led me to develop the tastes that I have. But if I judge things, that is by having an opinion of to what extent they approach an ideal possible experience or one of a number of ideal possible experiences. Not by saying "oh I'm bored with the last thing I was dicking around with, I want something different".
If one feels that a game that is essentially identical to another one is of lesser quality because it is essentially identical, then that means that one is running on novelty value alone, which means that one has probably been playing too many games lately.
You're missing the point where I said that there's a difference between interesting and good.
Sleeping Dogs is a fun sandbox game with an engrossing plot that I really enjoyed playing. It is good. However, it does not distinguish itself sufficiently from the glut of 'morally ambiguous person in a city doing gang violence' games that GTA spawned, so it is not interesting.
Or, to take an inverse perspective, Ghost Suburb II was a trippy experience with weird art and weird characters. It is interesting. However, the plot gets sloppy at the end (I mean, even for trippy games), and the gameplay could use some work. It is not good.
You're missing the point where I said that there's a difference between interesting and good.
Sleeping Dogs is a fun sandbox game with an engrossing plot that I really enjoyed playing. It is good. However, it does not distinguish itself sufficiently from the glut of 'morally ambiguous person in a city doing gang violence' games that GTA spawned, so it is not interesting.
Or, to take an inverse perspective, Ghost Suburb II was a trippy experience with weird art and weird characters. It is interesting. However, the plot gets sloppy at the end (I mean, even for trippy games), and the gameplay could use some work. It is not good.
I think you're simply using "interesting" and "good" to indicate two different types of enjoyment.
That sentence does not make any sense. I don't understand it.
When one finds something "interesting", it's because there's something unknown to discover about it, be it mysteries to solve, interactions to explore, locales to map, etc..
Thus, it is enjoyable in its engagement of novelty and curiosity.
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
You're missing an entire dimension of the criticism process.
Because someone can engage with media, gain no enjoyment, but find it interesting in the context of genre, convention, market, what it means within the creator's body of work, the audience, and so on.
You're missing an entire dimension of the criticism process.
Because someone can engage with media, gain no enjoyment, but find it interesting in the context of genre, convention, market, what it means within the creator's body of work, the audience, and so on.
Why do they find it interesting? Obviously they're enjoying something about it.
Er, no. Most movie audiences wouldn't pay for two movies on the same weekend regardless of subject, because they like to do other things on weekends than watch a shitload of movies all at once.
Look, if being derivative is inherently bad, then every video game since the 1980s, every movie since the 1930s, and every book since at least the Tale of Genji has been fighting an uphill battle so mundane and commonplace as to not really warrant mention.
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
Sure. It's unavoidable. What is also unavoidable is that the audience doesn't read the work the way the author does, or that they choose only to focus on the worst parts. What is also unavoidable are the limitations of the creator and the medium.
These are all negative values, factors that can be mitigated by a variety of processes. No work can be perfect, but they can all be improved before release.
Now I'm mostly reminded of how Isaac is a largely good game but with a few too many issues to me, or how FTL is very well made but, unfortunately, still could use just a little something more to push it over the top.
Picked up Snake Blocks on the sale. Really disappointing -- it's only a couple hours long, and the controls and camera are really bad. It's sad, because the puzzles that are there range from mediocre to really neat. But there are just so few of them.
It would've benefited greatly from popup dragger controls like most 3D modelers give you, because dragging in 3D space along no specified axis is...screwy. Also locking you to isometric angles sucks, because there are a lot of places where the snake you want is obstructed from all possible isometric angles.
That makes me sad, I was really looking forward to it. Although I might still pick it up on a future sale or something anyway, since it's a cute-looking puzzler.
anyone else keeping an eye on Hieroglyphika or is that just me
also if anyone wants to rec me things in the vein of Doom I'd be more than happy to hear those recommendations
I've been following it, yeah, but would rather wait awhile before I delve into searching out much more information on it. Right now I'm... lukewarm, I guess.
I know pretty much everyone here who ever had any interest in it probably owns it already, but!
Tiny and Big is $1.49. ($2.24 with the soundtrack, or also $2.24 as part of the Suspenders Bundle with About Love and Hate and Leschek's Flight!)
Might actually the cheapest I've seen it go down to thus far within Steam's regular sales. 'Tis a ridiculously good deal, either way-- the game's short but there's a reason I'm in love.
Why is a lack of values judgment better than the presence of a system that judges your values?
Why is it better for a game to not comment on your actions than for them to even say anything at all?
I know I missed this, but I'm not one to turn down invitation for a longpost, so:
The lack of a system that judges the player's moral behaviours implies that all (or most) behaviours have some kind of validity. Most moral value systems in games are binary; see most BioWare games after Neverwinter Nights, Fallout 3, Fable, etc. Those systems can't hope to represent anything close to a sophisticated moral spectrum, and the D&D standard of Lawful/Chaotic-Good/Evil has its own limitations despite the inclusion of a second axis. Morality is so abstract and ultimately relative that only extreme acts could be considered to be always evil, and it's completely possible for good acts to serve a malevolent purpose -- by design or accident.
Binary systems of morality also limit roleplaying, because a character concept might not fit into either side of an opposite spectrum or at any point between it. On a Good/Evil axis, does the middle reflect true neutrality, self-exclusion, or erratic behaviour? Those options represent three different characters, but could easily be represented by the same point on an axis, whereas the extremes of each side don't contain nearly as much character diversity. Extreme evil, in context of most games, is mostly evil for evil's sake -- extreme good isn't much different.
Game designers are always tempted to attach values to values, too. If you're the paragon, then you obviously need some characteristic stat buffs or abilities. Same if you're a bloodthirsty madman. Usually, systems like this end up mechanically rewarding character extremes, implicitly penalising less consistent/more sophisticated choices.
Given all of the above, I favour morality systems that work on two axis (as that's still relatively simple, but can represent diversity), or none at all. Various tabletop RPGs provide alternative options, such as The Riddle of Steel; there is no true morality system, but characters are rewarded for consistent behaviour by only getting stat/skill upgrades through following their character's motivations. White Wolf games generally penalise or reward players based on a binary "morality" scale, but one that's specific to the character type in question; a Mage seen to cast spells by mundane people risks losing a fragment of their power.
I guess, in summary, the binary morality systems we're familiar with in games don't usually represent much or have particularly purposeful outcomes in gameplay (or even within the story, in some cases). This isn't to say that binary morality systems can't be good, but they're probably stronger in more focused games with a theme the morality system can be built around. Even then, mechanical rewards have to be used carefully, because they usually end up rewarding extremes. Without mechanical influence on the game, though, what purpose does a morality system serve outside specific story beats? Those story beats, to my mind, would have to be pretty interesting and decisive to warrant a morality system in the first place.
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
I think the Karma in Fallout is interesting. It represents reputation as morality. It's binary, in that you're either a saint or a sinner, but you never gain any if nobody sees what you're doing.
To exaggerate the implication of a lack of [X] meaning validity, what if there's nothing to judge your actions? No one has an opinion on who you are or what you do?
In the extreme, yes. But audiences will also generally reject something that is too innovative, as that degree of innovation will clash with predictable comforts that come from derivative process. Take Mount & Blade; an excellent, innovative game that has a tiny playerbase compared to derivative AAA behemoths, in part because its innovation makes it difficult to understand. Most beginners playing Mount & Blade don't have much frame of reference in terms of its combat, unit organisation, or economy. It slams together elements of action RPGs and grand strategy games, so unless you're familiar with both, you'll have a steep learning experience. Even if you are familiar with both, the combat system is something new.
On a larger scale, consider the failure of the Wii to maintain the attention of the "hardcore" (Christ I wish we had a better word for this) gamers, while gaining a massive casual following. Its motion controls simplified many in-game actions for the game-naive general audience, but added (mostly) unnecessary complexity for the experienced crowd. That crowd was also generally buying types of games where motion controls were unnecessary and didn't provide the requisite precision for the kinds of complex actions they were advertised executing; consider Link's tendency to flip out in Skyward Sword when doing anything other than very linear hand motions.
I like innovation as much as the next gamer bored by completely derivative games aimed at copying a previously successful formula. But some derivative inclusions go a long way as a sweetener alongside innovation -- you get to provide people with things they know they like, but also things they didn't know they liked until now. Often, the best games are both highly competent and highly derivative, with some kind innovation in some systems or elements of the game to take it over the edge of current expectations. Tales of Phantasia, by most marks, was not a terribly original JRPG -- but it was highly competent, and introduced something close to a real-time combat system without giving up turn-based party control. That one innovation was so powerful, in fact, that the Tales series itself has become stale repeating it with the same general stories and character archetypes.
So sure, being derivative can be negative. Especially if it's what comes to mind as the primary trait of a work. Being derivative can also be an anchor for a project that's introducing something new, though, as it allows the end user to feel some familiarity while building their understanding of innovative elements.
I think the Karma in Fallout is interesting. It represents reputation as morality. It's binary, in that you're either a saint or a sinner, but you never gain any if nobody sees what you're doing.
To exaggerate the implication of a lack of [X] meaning validity, what if there's nothing to judge your actions? No one has an opinion on who you are or what you do?
Then you've done a very good stealth run, I guess.
I can't really think of any examples of a game that includes absolutely no judgement of the player's actions where there's true choice, insofar as there's context to judge (so ruling out examples like Tetris). This is an issue because I'm trying to frame my response to the new question in context of some kind of experience I could draw upon or relay, but it doesn't quite exist. Whenever there's moral choice, some kind of internal game judgement follows -- a strong example would be The Witcher games, where the lack of a morality system is no obstacle when it comes to the game judging your decisions, at least in some cases.
Comments
If one feels that a game that is essentially identical to another one is of lesser quality because it is essentially identical, then that means that one is running on novelty value alone, which means that one has probably been playing too many games lately.
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Whether or not the product manages to transcend that negative value depends on the execution.
It is a neutral trait, inherently. It is merely a descriptor, in fact.
Alternatively, you consume too much media and are bored with having seen the same things too many times or something.
Also, I barely consume media at all.
Thus, it is enjoyable in its engagement of novelty and curiosity.
Because someone can engage with media, gain no enjoyment, but find it interesting in the context of genre, convention, market, what it means within the creator's body of work, the audience, and so on.
The desired goal of all media IS NOT enjoyment, because there is a diversity and variety of desired goals.
also criticism is looking more and more like a pointless load of shit
It's why movie audiences wouldn't pay for two pirate movies on the same weekend.
A "negative value" means it is a bad thing attached to it. Like consider it a dial, that you can turn up or down.
So I guess you just value different things than I do.
These are all negative values, factors that can be mitigated by a variety of processes. No work can be perfect, but they can all be improved before release.
your mum